EU funding for UK Canal Projects

[Paul C]

Yeah I agree short term, however long term, in a post-EU scenario, nobody could say what priorities there will be, mostly because there's elections every 5 years so its quite possible the government will change.

[billS]

Please note I've edited my above response.

 

Also: both long and short term. As I've put above, our government is not ideologically motivated by projects for social gain. Only financial.

 

So if we work on the assumption that the EU portion of CaRT funding will be removed, and make a worst case assumption that it will not be replaced by central government funding, how much of the £180M will CRT lose?

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[Jerra]

 

Jerra, it seems that you are trying to wind up the mods. Therein lies the path to all sorts of nameless horrors. Don't do it.

 

 

Please!!

 

Theo

I am trying to understand a rule which says words to the effect no politics or religion under any circumstances and then I find that isn't the case.

 

If that winds anybody up I apologies but not understanding what is and isn't allowed gets me down.

[Machpoint005]

To answer your first question, sufficient merit is laid out in the application criteria of each of the three funding streams I listed earlier. Those criteria have been agreed by panels of industry relevant and governing officials from multiple EU countries. They have a much more socially progressive ideology than our current Tory government meaning our country benefits from the EU's more open minded view that the waterways, culture and heritage have a social value not just a financial one.

 

And in response to your second question about what makes one think that our government won't take the EU money and give it to the waterways, heritage and cultural sectors which currently are a few of the canal-relevant programmes: past performance is what! The equivalent funding streams in the UK have already been cut, Paul. Central government have put their money where their mouth is with regards to waterways, the heritage sector, cultural sector and the like. And taken it away. The charities that ran the programmes have already been made bankrupt. They're gone for good. the government even closed down their own Waterways governing body in favour of a trust that now has to compete for money with all other charities in the country. What's left of these sectors is hanging on by a tiny and precarious financial thread. Why would anyone, based on that track record assume our government would suddenly start throwing money at this area?

 

Thank you for this, and the previous posts presenting factual information on how a particular sector is financed. Unfortunately, as soon as facts are presented that tend to support a "remain" vote, there's a deafening chorus of "La la la, I'm not listening".

 

Personally, I've always thought that the remain/leave decision is far too important to be left to the uninformed, but we are faced with it anyway (and the consequences do not just affect the waterways). Let's just hope that common sense, not wishful thinking, prevails.

[provence]

 

The thread is fine so far - political topics can be discussed if they relate to canals/boating.

 

Ok, let's see if this thread remains then. To answer the point as to why I believe blue strings post was nonsense. We pay ball park 18 billion a year to the EU. We get an immediate rebate of 5 billion plus the EU then spends 4.5 billion of OUR money on so called EU projects. All this money will not just disappear if we leave. It just means that instead of the EU telling us how to spend 4.5 billion of OUR money, we can decide ourselves. In addition to this however we will also be able to spend the 8.5 billion we pay them that we don't get back.

 

 

AT LAST commonsense thinking

Dave

 

 

 

[Athy]

I am trying to understand a rule which says words to the effect no politics or religion under any circumstances and then I find that isn't the case.

 

If that winds anybody up I apologies but not understanding what is and isn't allowed gets me down.

Jerra, I certainly don't consider you to be a "wind-up" man.

I guess that the difference would be something like:

- "David Cameron and his party are morons" - political, not kosher here.

- "David Cameron and his party are morons because they want to fill in the Grand Union and make it into a motorway" - relevant to canals, therefore kosher.

It depends on the degree of relevance to our hobby/passion/life of canals.

[bag 'o' bones]

Jerra, I certainly don't consider you to be a "wind-up" man.

I guess that the difference would be something like:

- "David Cameron and his party are morons" - political, not kosher here.

- "David Cameron and his party are morons because they want to fill in the Grand Union and make it into a motorway" - relevant to canals, therefore kosher.

It depends on the degree of relevance to our hobby/passion/life of canals.

and also keeping debates friendly rather than degenerating into a personal slanging match.

[BlueStringPudding]

 

So if we work on the assumption that the EU portion of CaRT funding will be removed, and make a worst case assumption that it will not be replaced by central government funding, how much of the £180M will CRT lose?

Your assumption that there is a removable EU pot of gold, that it's somehow unconnected to the future of all of all boaters and is worth nothing more than a figure on a piece of paper is wrong, and it should not be important to you or anyone else unless you only care whether the Chesterfield gets nice towpaths instead of whether CRT goes bust or privatised and canals close. It's nowhere near that simple. Charity business model funding does not work like that. Please read again my earlier posts for lists of many of the things that makes up far more than the value in euros of each investment. Or do a course in third sector business modelling and work in it for two decades like I did!

 

How much does that EU funding have to be to make you vote to stay in the EU? Because that's why I assume you're asking.£10million? £100million? What price do you put on all the aspects of "added value" and its resulting resilience and solvency that I listed in my earlier posts?

 

The point is that if you want to vote based on being informed you will do the research yourself. For people who don't want to be informed, and just want to argue why they want out, then any amount in £s will be irrelevant to them.

 

I replied to the title of this thread with my knowledge and experience of funding in sectors relevant to our waterways. You want to know more, find out yourself. I'm not your researcher and am not here for a political debate. I'm from the sector and have shared my knowledge of how the sector has fared since the current government changed the funding landscape for councils, the cultural sector and charities. And that's what CRT is - a charity vulnerable to all the same minutiae of funding changes as the rest of them. Short or long term cuts makes no difference when a charity has only 6 months operating reserves as standard. Some charities have fewer. Then they go bust and it's too late.

 

If I wanted political debate I'd go on that ridiculous Thunderpants website instead of here. But for anyone who genuinely needs more detail about CRT's reliance on funding from the EU plus the funding it receives from other organisations that themselves are funded by the EU (CRT, like the UK, is not an island when it comes to economics), why not ask them? The former they will be able to answer given enough notice to compile a list of all interested parties in their funded programmes. The latter however will take months of research and multiple FOI requests across tens or probably hundreds of organisations, trusts, foundations, statutory funders, major donors and local authorities. One goes bust, they drag the rest down with them. How many funders do we think CRT can afford to watch go bust before they follow?

 

Once again I'll say what I've implied in my previous comments but perhaps it wasn't clear: think about the much bigger picture of the wider income streams of CRT and all of its partners. Don't just think this is about whether a few projects don't happen and it's just a few quid that maybe they'll find from somewhere else in the future. There's no somewhere else. Who cares when the whole network has closed anyway because all CRT's partners and funders have gone too?

Edited May 10, 2016 by BlueStringPudding

[Jerra]

Jerra, I certainly don't consider you to be a "wind-up" man.

I guess that the difference would be something like:

- "David Cameron and his party are morons" - political, not kosher here.

- "David Cameron and his party are morons because they want to fill in the Grand Union and make it into a motorway" - relevant to canals, therefore kosher.

It depends on the degree of relevance to our hobby/passion/life of canals.

I can see that and agree with your point but that isn't what was put in place an outright ban on certain topics was put in place.

 

In your example the problem could be dealt with by a sanction on the individual which is what I suggested during the discussions about the problem.

 

However I had better stop and give myself a week or two self imposed ban as I did recently other wise I will be getting into trouble.

[furnessvale]

I think far more chance of getting the money from EU just look at all the money they paid into Dutch Canals

So the best way of subverting the will of the democratically elected UK Parliament is to ensure the unelected EU Commissioners are in a position to overrule it.

 

Best argument I've seen yet for Brexit.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[billS]

BSP - So we have a discussion on funding where you claim that you are an "expert" in third sector funding but are unwilling or unable to discuss numbers. Numbers are what funding is all about.

 

I am genuinely undecided at this point in the debate. Let's remember that we can only discuss one aspect of the Brexit debate on here, and that's the effect on the canals and boating. If you are unwilling to use your experience to present substantiated facts, thats fine - I have never asked you to be my researcher, but you are the one who claims expertise in the area. I would have expected to have a more reasoned and numerically based argument from an expert.

 

Rubbishing the person asking a genuine question is never a convincing argument.

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[Graham Davis]

I notice that everyone is concentrating on the CaRT element of EU funding, but what about all the other canal projects that receive EU funding, from the restoration of various canals to the restoration of buildings and boats? What will they do for funding if we do leave the EU? I cannot see the UK government concentrating on them with limited funds available.

And it isn't just the canals, but lots of other things that could be at risk, from preserved railways to other charities.

 

I know which way I will be voting!!

[peterboat]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

 

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

 

 

Anyway, I've made it clear that in my career experience working with organisations like local authorities all over the UK, heritage sector and charities like CRT, how leaving the EU will decimate the waterways, boaters' lifestyles and wallets, and affect us all socially in terms of what we think local and central government currently pays for.

 

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety. Some people are just like that.

 

It's your decisions, fellow boaters.

But doesnt the government already fund the waterways? so maybe from the huge savings from not giving to the eu, they could make up the shortfall and more. Plus the lottery seems to give plenty as well?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

But doesnt the government already fund the waterways? so maybe from the huge savings from not giving to the eu, they could make up the shortfall and more. Plus the lottery seems to give plenty as well?

I think we've sort of covered that. Why would a Government committed to smaller Government (this isn't my rhetoric, it is their stated manifesto aim) want to throw taxpayers money at the canals? The aim is for them to be self financing so I cannot envisage any scenario where Government, whilst reducing budgets to numerous other areas, will cheerfully throw more money (even if available) at a minority sport. If they had the money spare there are a lot more deserving causes.

[homer2911]

Where does DEFRA get its funding from...

Oh yes! A big chunk of it comes from the EU. And they give some of it to CRT.

The EU doesn't get listed as a line on management accounts!

Anyway, I've made it clear that in my career experience working with organisations like local authorities all over the UK, heritage sector and charities like CRT, how leaving the EU will decimate the waterways, boaters' lifestyles and wallets, and affect us all socially in terms of what we think local and central government currently pays for.

People who want to learn and make an informed decision when they vote next month will do so. People who don't will rant with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut and have no intention of emerging from the primordial soup of their own naivety. Some people are just like that.

It's your decisions, fellow boaters.

You don't help your argument by portraying those of us planning to vote for exit as uninformed, ignorant - your word - idiots. I've been a boater for twenty-odd years, but there is more at stake here than our lifestyle .

[Jerra]

But doesnt the government already fund the waterways? so maybe from the huge savings from not giving to the eu, they could make up the shortfall and more. Plus the lottery seems to give plenty as well?

This to me is the problem with the pro-bexit argument it is all they could, maybe,it might etc.

[GoodGurl]

BSP - So we have a discussion on funding where you claim that you are an "expert" in third sector funding but are unwilling or unable to discuss numbers. Numbers are what funding is all about.

 

I am genuinely undecided at this point in the debate. Let's remember that we can only discuss one aspect of the Brexit debate on here, and that's the effect on the canals and boating. If you are unwilling to use your experience to present substantiated facts, thats fine - I have never asked you to be my researcher, but you are the one who claims expertise in the area. I would have expected to have a more reasoned and numerically based argument from an expert.

 

Rubbishing the person asking a genuine question is never a convincing argument.

i have just read CRTs operating plan for 2012 - 2015, whilst it states they do have DEFRA funding (subject to certain performance standards) they also state that the gov is the biggest funder @ 39M but doesn't state how much the EU give, it is obviously lower than what the gov give to CRT and so it's nowhere near the £180m stated earlier.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2348.pdf

Edited May 10, 2016 by GoodGurl

[homer2911]

This to me is the problem with the pro-bexit argument it is all they could, maybe,it might etc.

And the Remain argument is full of certainties, is it? Bless!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You don't help your argument by portraying those of us planning to vote for exit as uninformed, ignorant - your word - idiots. I've been a boater for twenty-odd years, but there is more at stake here than our lifestyle .

I have tried reading it with my different glasses AND done a 'Find' function on my computer, in the bit you quote the poster, despite you saying 'your word' doesn't seem to have used either the word 'idiot' or 'ignorant', did I miss it somewhere?

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wanderer Vagabond

[billS]

I think we've sort of covered that. Why would a Government committed to smaller Government (this isn't my rhetoric, it is their stated manifesto aim) want to throw taxpayers money at the canals? The aim is for them to be self financing so I cannot envisage any scenario where Government, whilst reducing budgets to numerous other areas, will cheerfully throw more money (even if available) at a minority sport. If they had the money spare there are a lot more deserving causes.

 

Tthat is a very good point. However, as far as can see, although it provides part funding for specific restoration projects (which will ultimately add to CaRT's maintenance budget) the EU does not provide any funding to CaRT existing business. BSP claims that some of of the money from the DEFRA portion of CaRT's funding comes from the EU, but what this actually amounts to appears to be difficult to establish. In any case, if it is indeed under DEFRA control, then presumably they decide where to apportion it so there is not guarantee that the status quo would remain.

Edited May 10, 2016 by billS

[homer2911]

I have tried reading it with my different glasses AND done a 'Find' function on my computer, in the bit you quote the poster, despite you saying 'your word' doesn't seem to have used either the word 'idiot' or 'ignorant', did I miss it somewhere?

Post Number 6, if it's really that important to you. Btw, I didn't claim that the word 'idiot' had been used, but that's the level of contempt that I detect in the OP for we unbelievers

Edited May 10, 2016 by homer2911

[billS]

i have just read CRTs operating plan for 2012 - 2015, whilst it states they do have DEFRA funding (subject to certain performance standards) they also state that the gov is the biggest funder @ 39M but doesn't state how much the EU give, it is obviously lower than what the gov give to CRT and so it's nowhere near the £180m stated earlier.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/2348.pdf

 

The £180M figure comes from CaRT's 2015 annual report page 11

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiTrdKns9DMAhVbOMAKHWYhDoIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcanalrivertrust.org.uk%2Fmedia%2Flibrary%2F11269.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHPatPsZd6XUQyC0ZjxOreaELB99A&bvm=bv.121421273,d.ZGg&cad=rja

 

The £39M is the Defra Grant

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Tthat is a very good point. However, as far as can see, although it provides part funding for specific restoration projects (which will ultimately add to CaRT's maintenance budget) the EU does not provide any funding to CaRT existing business. BSP claims that some of of the money from the DEFRA portion of CaRT's funding comes from the EU, but what this actually amounts to appears to be difficult to establish. In any case, if it is undeed under DEFRA control, then presumably they decide where to apportion it so there is not guarantee that the status quo would remain.

I don't think that there is any likelihood of the status quo remaining since the DEFRA grant is only guaranteed for 15 years, after that, what?

[Jerra]

And the Remain argument is full of certainties, is it? Bless!

At least you come across the odd fact such as yes UK out of EU will be able to trade with the EU but it will almost certainly be along one of the two existing models.

 

Model 1 which Iceland and Norway use they pay money in to the EU and have to produce everything being traded the EU regs but have no input to forming those regs.

 

Model 2. Used by Switzerland they don't pay in but are banned from trading in certain areas one being financial. A uk prevented from trading in banking etc with the EU would be missing out big time.

 

The fact that industries who export to the EU know their business will be effected.

 

It is a fact that parts of the UK get more in grants than they ever did from a UK government and those grants come to more than UK pays into that particular pot. Scientific research being one the grant being (from memory) about double what the UK pays in for scientific research grants.

 

etc etc

 

And as we are being in a childish patronising frame of mind Ah Bless to you too.

[peterboat]

None of it will really matter will it if we leave the EU?, as we will be involved in a war [according to Cameron] so the canals will have to be used for transportation of war goods so all the maintenance and upgrading will be done. Just trying to provide a light hearted win win view to the thread